A sad casualty of DEI/Woke at Cambridge University

[Emily Lake]

I'm not speculating, I am mocking his consistently dishonest debate tactic of citing very unlikely "friends" as evidence that minorities secretly hate "woke" and desire the outcomes of conservative political projects.

And yet...
Thomas Sowell
Clarence Thomas
Jeffrey Mead
Adam Coleman
Winsome Sears
Kemi Badenoch
... And more!

 

[pood]

You think it's "negligible harm" to exclude skilled and motivated white people in South Africa from jobs? And you think it's "great harm" to expect black South Africans to competently do the jobs they were hired for rather than just being tokens that let's their employer tick a box?

What is your evidence that black South Africans DON’T competently do the jobs they were hired ton do, and are just tokens that allowed their employers to tick a box?

Dr. Z’s imaginary back friend’s word for it?

 

[Toni]

Here's the thing about race and achievement in the US: My parents were poor during the Great Depression which is significantly different than poor today because there were zero social safety net programs that could have helped their families. Each had a parent who had a serious, debilitating and chronic illness which killed them at a young age, leaving my parents each to grow up in a single parent home. The highest educational attainment of my grandparents was completion of the 8th grade, although my grandfather helped all of his younger siblings obtain college educations. At the same time, he tried to convince my father to drop out of high school at age 16 because he needed the help on the farm. My father finished high school to spite his father. Dad was quite bright and under different circumstances, I think he would have become an engineer or an architect. I think he would have been happier as an architect but probably the machismo of engineering would have won out.

My father started out at the company he worked for until retirement at age 18 or 19, as a warehouse worker. He worked his way up, steadily, and eventually managed a bunch of accounts and trained VPs to do their job, which he was not qualified to do because he lacked a college degree. He did some product development and held a patent (or his company did for his new product). My parents managed to have my mother stay home to raise the family, after the first few years, and like now, daycare was difficult to find so: it was stay at home. Which was difficult because my mother knew she should be grateful--her own mother scrubbed hospital floors to support her ailing husband and 4 kids, so it was a luxury to stay at home. But Mom wasn't really suited for the work. Still, my parents eventualy managed to purchase a very modest ranch home in the early 60's. My parents instilled in all of us kids the same notion of excelling in school the way stereotypical Asian parents do, minus the money for lessons or cram schools, etc. I did not realize until well into adulthood that my parents were obnoxious in how much they bragged about us kids because we never heard an actual word of praise or pride. It was more like coming home with a 97% and being asked to account for the missing 3 percent. I remember once getting an A- in elementary school and being afraid to go home with my report card. But they had good reason: My dad's company sponsored scholarships for the high achieving offspring of employees. That was the only way we would be able to go to college. And there was no question of whether or not we would go.

My dad was fairly bigoted ( I loved him and he's been dead for more than 20 years and so I'm soft peddling things here) and he used to feel it was unfair that black people had all sorts of advantages he never had (which was hard to imagine which advantages those were. My mother's stepfather, we came to learn long after he died, was a member of the KKK, so that was alive and active when/where he grew up. And where i did. My parents shielded us from a lot but I heard rumors that were apparently true that a couple of times black families attempted to move into our town or at least the school district and had crosses burnt in front of their homes). I guess he meant Affirmative Action; and being allowed to attend the same underfunded schools that we attended, until they bought their house in an all white town. I used to look at him and think: I'm so proud and impressed with all that you achieved but imagine trying to do that while black. It would not have been possible. It simply would not have been. Dad felt his company was progressive because they hired an occasional black woman to work as a secretary. I tried to talk with him about how much harder it would have been (ie impossible) had he been black but he was convinced no one had it harder than he did growing up. And friends, things were really tough for him and for my mother. I remember well when both sets of grandparents got indoor plumbing. My dad's stepmother cooked on a coal stove that heated half of the house and another one heated the other half. My dad and uncle slept in an unheated attic space. Christmas was an orange and some nuts in the bottom of a sock. They ate from the garden and hunted and fished and foraged in the woods. Milk from the cows and later, some meat from pigs as my grandfather could not keep up with the milking after Dad left home. Eggs from the chickens, and extra eggs and extra produce sold from the kitchen. Grandpa gave me 4 silver dollars for high school graduation. I am still ashamed that my father somehow felt he had to explain that was all my grandfather had to give me. I knew. We never talked about money but I knew. I hate to think what my grandfather had to give up to give me those four silver coins.

So for my parents to be able to purchase a home not on a farmstead and to send their kids to college (on scholarships and we were responsible for the rest of the funding) was truly a miracle of hard work, determination and big dreams for their kids.

And if we had been black, none of that would have been possible.

It's easy to think with my nice education and my nicely educated spouse and kids and nice life and plenty of friends of various backgrounds that racism no longer exists or is no longer significant. Very easy to do if you don't actually look around or listen to what people say. I'm ashamed that for a good long while, I allowed myself to forget about racism because the small town we live in was so completely white (except for a handful of faculty, mostly foreign born) that I could literally go months and never see anyone with coloring darker than my own. I mean, I knew it existed but I personally had to deal very little with it, even the inconvenience of witnessing someone being treated poorly or more likely hearing about it.

It's so easy to discount what you don't have to deal with yourself or what does not affect you or your family. So easy to take for granted.

White people struggling to tread water, never mind, progressing is not the same thing as trying to keep your head above water while black. Because when you work so hard just to survive and to provide a better life for your family, it can be hard to imagine anyone working harder than you do.

Counterpoint: My dad was black. His parents and grandparents were extremely poor black people in a very racist environment. His parents grew up in the great depression. His mom got pregnant at 14, and raised my dad for 5 years by herself. She had 6 other children with her second husband, before he died from chronic illness at a young age, after which she raised all 7 alone. My dad was a black kid picking cotton in the south, child of a black mother who worked in a textile mill and cleaned houses.

My dad, and all of his siblings, all purchased houses not on farmsteads and built successful lives for themselves. My dad joined the military and gained an education while in, then put himself through graduate school after separation.

It is absolutely possible. And your just-so-story about how it's all whitey's fault and black people are still being oppressed and kept down because of skin color is unconvincing.

Of course it is possible! LOTS of black individuals have accomplished a tremendous amount, professionally, economically, academically, etc.

I would like to point out that the military is a tremendous equalizer or was prior to Hegseth's reign of terror. Not just for the service people enlisted but for their families as well. My friend who grew up mostly on bases never understood racism at all because it simply did not exist in her world.

My 'just so' story was only about my father who struggled mightily to make a better life for his kids. The fact is that someone like my father, who did not join/was not drafted (donut hole for age plus early marriage/kids) who was black would have faced far greater struggles than did my father. Or my mother.

I have nothing but respect for the men and women who are able to overcome poverty and prejudice to achieve their dreams and to find a better life for themselves and their kids. Poverty is a big enough burden without throwing in racism and other bigotries.

 

[Toni]

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Interesting how all of your "solutions" to social ills involve reducing a negligible harm to whites by greatly harming Blacks instead. It's almost as though you are... what's the word for that again?

You think it's "negligible harm" to exclude skilled and motivated white people in South Africa from jobs? And you think it's "great harm" to expect black South Africans to competently do the jobs they were hired for rather than just being tokens that let's their employer tick a box?

I'm not sure I understand the version of "harm" you're working from.

The point is that no one should be excluded because of race. For centuries and well into the 20th century, it was very common place. It still happens. I've watched white co-workers who disliked another co-worker of color attribute all sorts of characteristics based on race upon the object of their dislike. I had to threaten to report a colleague to the head of the lab--not the intermediaries but the head of the lab or to HR if he would not stop referring to a black coworker as boy. A few years ago.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Interesting how all of your "solutions" to social ills involve reducing a negligible harm to whites by greatly harming Blacks instead. It's almost as though you are... what's the word for that again?

It's also interesting he always has a "personal experience" for just about any situation that arises.

 

[TSwizzle]

The point is that no one should be excluded because of race.

Brandon did it when he decided to exclude all races for VP and Supreme Court in favor of POC.

 

[Toni]

The point is that no one should be excluded because of race.

Brandon did it when he decided to exclude all races for VP and Supreme Court in favor of POC.

I don't know any Brandon???

 

[TSwizzle]

The point is that no one should be excluded because of race.

Brandon did it when he decided to exclude all races for VP and Supreme Court in favor of POC.

I don't know any Brandon???

Sure, Jan.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't think his Black friend is a real person, but if he is, he's an idiot, because without the end of Apartheid his business would not be doing well no matter how "lazy" or "ambitious" his employees are. He would not be able to do business with most customers, own land in most towns, secure collateral for a loan, or many other things necessary for the success of a business, because it was illegal for Blacks to do those things.

In the first place DrZ didn't say the guy was his friend. For all we know it was just two guys striking up a conversation while sitting next to each other in an airport waiting to board. And in the second place, there were plenty of black-owned businesses in SA before Apartheid ended. Businesses don't all need to do business with most customers, own land in most towns, or secure collateral for a loan. They need to do business with their customers, lease land in their towns, and expand on retained earnings or on loans from relatives, the same way small businesses have operated in typical third-world countries since forever. If the guy's business was doing better under apartheid, then presumably either he was located in a township, or else he was located in one of the 97 "open trading areas" in white districts that the 1985 reforms opened up to black-owned businesses. There is nothing implausible about DrZ's anecdote and you have no cause to accuse him of lying.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't think his Black friend is a real person, but if he is, he's an idiot, because without the end of Apartheid his business would not be doing well no matter how "lazy" or "ambitious" his employees are. He would not be able to do business with most customers, own land in most towns, secure collateral for a loan, or many other things necessary for the success of a business, because it was illegal for Blacks to do those things.

In the first place DrZ didn't say the guy was his friend. For all we know it was just two guys striking up a conversation while sitting next to each other in an airport waiting to board. And in the second place, there were plenty of black-owned businesses is SA before Apartheid ended. Businesses don't all need to do business with most customers, own land in most towns, or secure collateral for a loan. They need to do business with their customers, lease land in their towns, and expand on retained earnings or on loans from relatives, the same way small businesses have operated in typical third-world countries since forever. If the guy's business was doing better under apartheid, then presumably either he was located in a township, or else he was located in one of the 97 "open trading areas" in white districts that the 1985 reforms opened up to black-owned businesses. There is nothing implausible about DrZ's anecdote and you have no cause to accuse him of lying.

Whether an anecdote's content is plausible is different than the plausibility of someone always conveniently having an acquaintance/friend/lover etc... that has a relevant story. So you have no cause for your response.

 

[Toni]

The point is that no one should be excluded because of race.

Brandon did it when he decided to exclude all races for VP and Supreme Court in favor of POC.

I don't know any Brandon???

Sure, Jan.

Who dat?

 

[Bomb#20]

... If the guy's business was doing better under apartheid, then presumably either he was located in a township, or else he was located in one of the 97 "open trading areas" in white districts that the 1985 reforms opened up to black-owned businesses. There is nothing implausible about DrZ's anecdote and you have no cause to accuse him of lying.

Whether an anecdote's content is plausible is different than the plausibility of someone always conveniently having an acquaintance/friend/lover etc... that has a relevant story. So you have no cause for your response.

In the first place, I was pointing out Poli's argument doesn't hold up. If you have a different argument, that doesn't make Poli's any better.

And in the second place, we aren't all introverts. As Google AI puts it,

Connectors represent a very small, rare fraction of a population—typically a tiny handful of individuals in any given community or network. In formal sociological network analysis and popular network concepts like Malcolm Gladwell's analysis in The Tipping Point, connectors are not quantified by an exact universal percentage. Instead, they are defined functionally as structural "hubs" or high-degree nodes who possess social networks four to five times larger than the average person—often maintaining active acquaintanceships with hundreds or thousands of people across diverse social circles.​

I knew a lady like that. And you don't maintain an active acquaintanceship with a thousand people if you don't first get into casual conversation with ten thousand. DrZ comes off to me as another one.

 

[Toni]

... If the guy's business was doing better under apartheid, then presumably either he was located in a township, or else he was located in one of the 97 "open trading areas" in white districts that the 1985 reforms opened up to black-owned businesses. There is nothing implausible about DrZ's anecdote and you have no cause to accuse him of lying.

Whether an anecdote's content is plausible is different than the plausibility of someone always conveniently having an acquaintance/friend/lover etc... that has a relevant story. So you have no cause for your response.

In the first place, I was pointing out Poli's argument doesn't hold up. If you have a different argument, that doesn't make Poli's any better.

And in the second place, we aren't all introverts. As Google AI puts it,

Connectors represent a very small, rare fraction of a population—typically a tiny handful of individuals in any given community or network. In formal sociological network analysis and popular network concepts like Malcolm Gladwell's analysis in The Tipping Point, connectors are not quantified by an exact universal percentage. Instead, they are defined functionally as structural "hubs" or high-degree nodes who possess social networks four to five times larger than the average person—often maintaining active acquaintanceships with hundreds or thousands of people across diverse social circles.​

I knew a lady like that. And you don't maintain an active acquaintanceship with a thousand people if you don't first get into casual conversation with ten thousand. DrZ comes off to me as another one.

I have an adult kid who’s like that. You could drop him anyplace on earth and pick him up the next week, and he’d know half iof everybody and they’d know him, too. And for the most part, they’d be buddies.

That said, he’s very well aware of the types of friends. He put it kind of like: there are the friends you’d meet up with at a bar, the friends you call if you need extra have a while moving, the friends you hang with regularly and you share a lot of interests. And then there are friends you’d call to help you bury a body.

 

[Politesse]

Even if all his friends are real, his constant use of them as convenient standins to voice conservative opinions as though they had the support of oppressed minorities is at best suspect. He wants the perceived authority of their subjugated status, but he is our only source for what they said. Did this Black businessman actually say "I wish Apartheid was back"? Or was it more like "Shit my workers have gotten lazy since Apartheid ended! Those white boys have picked up the pace though." We have no way of knowing, and its likely DrZ doesn't even remember. So how seriously are we supposed to take all these friends of his. If he really is a superconnector magic friend or whatever, he's willfully misrepresenting how MOST of his many Black friends feel about the fucking Apartheid.

 

[pood]

Even if all his friends are real, his constant use of them as convenient standins to voice conservative opinions as though they had the support of oppressed minorities is at best suspect. He wants the perceived authority of their subjugated status, but he is our only source for what they said. Did this Black businessman actually say "I wish Apartheid was back"? Or was it more like "Shit my workers have gotten lazy since Apartheid ended! Those white boys have picked up the pace though." We have no way of knowing, and its likely DrZ doesn't even remember. So how seriously are we supposed to take all these friends of his. If he really is a superconnector magic friend or whatever, he's willfully misrepresenting how MOST of his many Black friends feel about the fucking Apartheid.

I believe they are nothing but a bunch of tall tales spun to reinforce his own bigotry.

 

[Bomb#20]

Inclusion is a zero-sum game unless you're increasing the number of positions.

Not buying that. Anyone can “increase the number of positions”. (If there exists any degree of equal opportunity)

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. For instance, it took Bakke four years of dragging Davis through the courts to make them increase their class size from 100 to 101. Cambridge didn't increase its faculty size for Arday -- he was appointed to a preexisting chair. So somebody was excluded on his behalf.

Inclusion, as I noted above is not some kind of actionable principle to be enforced, but a metric of the extent to which equality is operational.

Only when nobody's excluded as a consequence. How often do you think it works out that way? Excluding one and including the other isn't operational equality.

The “number of positions” is not fixed, and is very much subject to people’s abilities to create positions for themselves and/others. It’s NOT a zero sum game. Pretending it is, is to deny people’s abilities to create positions.
Believe me B, in 2006 I was fairly unemployable in the marketplace of “positions” but was able, through the fact of inclusion in critical conversations, to create a “position” for myself, and ultimately dozens of others. And that was not the first time I had to create my own position.

Good for you. Did you do it by convincing management adding a new position for you would help them virtue signal, or help them produce goods and services?

 

[Bomb#20]

"Racism" is prejudice against people because of their ethnicity or perceived ethnicity, or hostility toward them, or viewing them as inferiors.

To my eye, racial preferences per se for the groups who appear to need them don't look like they qualify. The purpose isn't to hurt the groups doing better than others -- that's a side effect. They're targeted for harm because racial preferences are a zero-sum game and there's nobody else to take the slots from. It's kind of like a government making taxpayers pay for the government's own mistakes and wrongdoing -- it's not because they think taxpayers are inferior or whatever; it's just that they can't get the money from anyone else.

I understand what you are saying. The intention isn't to hurt the groups. But in practice it does. That makes DEI racist,

You're sounding like the poster in a CRT debate a few years back, who said it was racist to let parents buy things for their kids, on the grounds that it put black kids at a competitive disadvantage to white kids and propagated racial disparities across generations. Does that sound like valid reasoning to you? Is buying your kid a bike racist?

even though everyone championing it isn't.

"Racist" is a mental property. I don't think those can be embodied in non-minds. It seems like a category error, kind of like saying "Estonia" was cowardly for submitting to Stalin's ultimatum instead of standing and fighting like Finland, but that the actual Estonian decision makers responsible weren't cowards. "DEI" is a non-mind. The only sense I can make of "DEI is racist but not everyone championing it is" is that it means the non-racists have been duped by the racists championing it. Is that what you're proposing?

If you know a thing you're doing hurts people and you keep doing it, then you're just hurting people.

That's not how it works. Suppose a cop sent to take down a meth lab misreads the address, breaks into your house and shoots you, leaving you crippled. You can't sue him because of "qualified immunity", plus he's way too poor to pay your medical bills and lost income, so you sue the city that put him on the job. You know suing is going to hurt the taxpayers and you keep doing it anyway. Are you "just hurting people"? No. You're drafting people to fix your problem because you have no better option.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Interesting anecdote but not really on point -- it's an argument for racial quotas being counterproductive, not for their being racist.

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help. I'm a liberal. I think we should keep trying. But a good liberal should also re-evaluate and adjust when things aren't going according to plan. The liberals are also supposed to be the "informed by science"-side. We associate "faith based policies" with conservatism. ...

Hmm. The folks pushing DEI don't look like liberals to me. They're progressives, or they're social democrats, or democratic socialists. It's become normalized in the US to call their views "liberal" -- it's protective coloration going back to when McCarthy was labeling the democratic left "communists". But there's no reason for Europeans to embrace American language abuse. Reality has a liberal bias, but that's no reason to expect progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists not to be faith-based.

 

[DrZoidberg]

​

"Racism" is prejudice against people because of their ethnicity or perceived ethnicity, or hostility toward them, or viewing them as inferiors.

To my eye, racial preferences per se for the groups who appear to need them don't look like they qualify. The purpose isn't to hurt the groups doing better than others -- that's a side effect. They're targeted for harm because racial preferences are a zero-sum game and there's nobody else to take the slots from. It's kind of like a government making taxpayers pay for the government's own mistakes and wrongdoing -- it's not because they think taxpayers are inferior or whatever; it's just that they can't get the money from anyone else.

I understand what you are saying. The intention isn't to hurt the groups. But in practice it does. That makes DEI racist,

You're sounding like the poster in a CRT debate a few years back, who said it was racist to let parents buy things for their kids, on the grounds that it put black kids at a competitive disadvantage to white kids and propagated racial disparities across generations. Does that sound like valid reasoning to you? Is buying your kid a bike racist?

even though everyone championing it isn't.

"Racist" is a mental property. I don't think those can be embodied in non-minds. It seems like a category error, kind of like saying "Estonia" was cowardly for submitting to Stalin's ultimatum instead of standing and fighting like Finland, but that the actual Estonian decision makers responsible weren't cowards. "DEI" is a non-mind. The only sense I can make of "DEI is racist but not everyone championing it is" is that it means the non-racists have been duped by the racists championing it. Is that what you're proposing?

If you know a thing you're doing hurts people and you keep doing it, then you're just hurting people.

That's not how it works. Suppose a cop sent to take down a meth lab misreads the address, breaks into your house and shoots you, leaving you crippled. You can't sue him because of "qualified immunity", plus he's way too poor to pay your medical bills and lost income, so you sue the city that put him on the job. You know suing is going to hurt the taxpayers and you keep doing it anyway. Are you "just hurting people"? No. You're drafting people to fix your problem because you have no better option.

This is one of those guns don't kill people, people kill people, discussions. Well... the guns aren't helping. Whether or not gun supporters are complicit in murder is a matter of definition.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a black South African black businessman when I was in Mumbai in 2003. He wanted Apartheid back. Not because he was for Apartheid. But because it was dismantled in a bad way. Each South African company needed a quota of blacks. The blacks who got hired becasue of the quota knew they were, so they didn't work. His black employees didn't work. His white employees did. His words. Inplication, South African DEI killed the ambition of blacks. This was in 2003. Since South Africa has gone from a healthy economy on par with Europe, to a standard dysfunctional African post-colonial economy. I know this wasn't the only reason it's economy has tanked. But I am sure it didn't help.

Interesting anecdote but not really on point -- it's an argument for racial quotas being counterproductive, not for their being racist.

It's a matter of definition. If something you're doing consistently hurts a particular racial group, I'd argue it's racist. No matter the good intentions behind it. It's like pacificsm. Pacifists have good intentions, but only acts to increase the incentive for countries to be violent. We're debating whether or not pacifists promote war or not. I'd say yes. I'm aware that's not what they want. But that is what their behaviour promotes and creates.

Too often liberals mean well, but end up hurting those they want to help. I'm a liberal. I think we should keep trying. But a good liberal should also re-evaluate and adjust when things aren't going according to plan. The liberals are also supposed to be the "informed by science"-side. We associate "faith based policies" with conservatism. ...

Hmm. The folks pushing DEI don't look like liberals to me. They're progressives, or they're social democrats, or democratic socialists. It's become normalized in the US to call their views "liberal" -- it's protective coloration going back to when McCarthy was labeling the democratic left "communists". But there's no reason for Europeans to embrace American language abuse. Reality has a liberal bias, but that's no reason to expect progressives, social democrats, and democratic socialists not to be faith-based.

Fair point. I was using the American vernacular. When discussing online it can get confusing. You're completely correct.

 

[Politesse]

It's a matter of definition. If something you're doing consistently hurts a particular racial group, I'd argue it's racist.

Then DEI has got nothing on efforts to dismantle DEI. How the fuck is a weird story of anecdotal harm here and there supposed to be "consistently" worse than mass layoffs and the construction of an iron ceiling on the basis of race?

Or your recently expressed love for Apartheid, same thing. If the problem is consistent harm, how is one rich asshole worried that his workers are too lazy a more consistent than an entire systrm of unjust laws dividing and suppressing the wellbeing of an entire nation.

I'm not sure you understand what "consistent" even means. Or "harm", for that matter. You and everyone else who argues that diversity, equity, and inclusion are evil are advocating for consistent harm to be done to people of minority race. Your declamation of anyone who calls out racist acts as an evil "woke" is advocating for consistent harm to be done to people of minority race. I don't have to tell you what you are. You have told us what you are.

 

[Elixir]

Inclusion, as I noted above is not some kind of actionable principle to be enforced, but a metric of the extent to which equality is operational.

Only when nobody's excluded as a consequence.

Nobody’s exclusion is caused by a metric. It’s a measurement, not a causal factor.

The “number of positions” is not fixed, and is very much subject to people’s abilities to create positions for themselves and/others. It’s NOT a zero sum game. Pretending it is, is to deny people’s abilities to create positions.
Believe me B, in 2006 I was fairly unemployable in the marketplace of “positions” but was able, through the fact of inclusion in critical conversations, to create a “position” for myself, and ultimately dozens of others. And that was not the first time I had to create my own position.

Good for you. Did you do it by convincing management adding a new position for you would help them virtue signal, or help them produce goods and services?

No. Did it by observing a unaddressed need, assembling a team starting with two people, building up to twenty-something plus an army of 140 reps, all in an effort to address that need by providing goods and services.
Do you live in a world where “management” limits all your choices? I suggest quitting, if that’s the case, AND management hasn’t kept you too poor to be able to make your own choices.*
If you don’t like how management functions for you, be your own manager. If you lack the requisite skills, look among your friends for someone who has those skills and recruit them. At least that’s what I have done, repeatedly. Maybe it doesn’t work for you; I don’t believe in universal lifestyle “solutions”.

* I was under the impression that you were a person who wrote their own ticket. Apologies if that’s not the case.